QMAR vs. ENFR
QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QMAR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. QMAR is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QMAR returned 11.30%/yr vs 20.07%/yr for ENFR. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QMAR charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.
Performance
QMAR vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QMAR achieves a 11.40% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.93% return.
QMAR
- 1D
- -1.06%
- 1M
- -0.77%
- YTD
- 11.40%
- 6M
- 11.38%
- 1Y
- 20.76%
- 3Y*
- 15.65%
- 5Y*
- 11.30%
- 10Y*
- —
ENFR
- 1D
- 1.51%
- 1M
- -4.52%
- YTD
- 24.93%
- 6M
- 25.03%
- 1Y
- 27.76%
- 3Y*
- 28.90%
- 5Y*
- 20.07%
- 10Y*
- 11.98%
QMAR vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 11.40% | 10.89% | 16.11% | 35.47% | -16.56% | 12.87% |
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 24.93% | 5.88% | 42.17% | 15.63% | 17.48% | 16.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between QMAR and ENFR is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.15 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021 | 0.30 |
The correlation between QMAR and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (1 year) to 0.30 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
QMAR vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QMAR
ENFR
Technology
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
-
Energy
Financial Services
Real Estate
-
Technology
QMAR
ENFR
-
Communication Services
QMAR
ENFR
-
Consumer Cyclical
QMAR
ENFR
-
Consumer Defensive
QMAR
ENFR
-
Healthcare
QMAR
ENFR
-
Industrials
QMAR
ENFR
Utilities
QMAR
ENFR
Basic Materials
QMAR
ENFR
-
Energy
QMAR
ENFR
Financial Services
QMAR
ENFR
Real Estate
QMAR
ENFR
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
QMAR vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank
QMAR
ENFR
QMAR vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| QMAR | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.31 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.18 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.74 | 1.32 | +0.42 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.49 | 3.23 | +3.26 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 39.78 | 8.24 | +31.54 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
QMAR vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QMAR drawdown since its inception was -19.83%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMAR and ENFR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QMAR | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.83% | -68.28% | +48.45% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.21% | -8.64% | +5.43% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.91% | -15.58% | -0.33% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.83% | -20.29% | +0.46% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -62.64% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.65% | -4.71% | +3.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.26% | -15.94% | +12.68% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.52% | 3.38% | -2.86% |
Volatility
QMAR vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) is 2.92%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 5.69%. This indicates that QMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QMAR | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.92% | 5.69% | -2.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.59% | 11.60% | -6.01% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.55% | 14.86% | -8.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.01% | 19.25% | -5.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.83% | 24.68% | -10.85% |
QMAR vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison
QMAR has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
QMAR vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison
QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.02%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 4.02% | 4.77% | 4.41% | 5.48% | 5.23% | 7.86% | 7.57% | 5.81% | 3.98% | 2.98% | 3.31% | 3.34% |
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QMAR and ENFR have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ENFR has higher volatility (5.69%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMAR dropped -19.83% vs ENFR's -68.28%.
On 5-year performance, ENFR leads with 20.07% vs 11.30% for QMAR. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 20.07% return vs 11.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.
ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.02%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.
QMAR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QMAR and 0.35% for ENFR.
QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 1.88), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for QMAR and ENFR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer